ÿWPCo& Æ# ä UNï %= 0ûC U:>4xŒÆ›ÆaÆ'íw@õ 0?5 0DtƸÆ~ D 0JJ 0T” 0^è 0hF 0r® 0|  0†œ 0" 1u² 0d' B‹U>¨U*æU* D3:B)mDC– 0@Ù 0K AOd¸³v~kvÓé D+¼$ AOç$ 0D6% D/z% B©% A©Æ%˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓH=$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€XÎ_XXXÔÑ7€¾úXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularR¦"3|x› Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ‡ ˆ D‰ DŠ ‹ DŒ E EŽ E  Ó€(ï(3 z$¤¤Ý ƒH=!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XبXXXÔÑ7€…pXXdìXXdð7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5H2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó -.,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ3,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd -‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd-.:›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ À ÑÑ X Ñò òÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌÌÌó óà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àSPECIAL€WORKERS'€COMPENSATION€APPEALS€PANELÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó ó̜ـ ÙÓ  ÓßR€/0,A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌVIRGIL€RAINEY,à àà àà àà à)à àANDERSON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)à àNO.€03S01„9607„„CV„00077Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€B.€SCOTT,€JR.,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌOAK€RIDGE€SCHOOLS,€à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appelleeà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR,€DIVISION€à à)ÌOF€WORKERSðð€COMPENSATION,à à)ÌTENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OF€à à)ÌLABOR,€SECOND€INJURY€FUND,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àThird„party€defendants/Appellees€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌòòò òÌÌÌÌÌœFor›€the€Appellant:à àà àœFor›€the€œAppellee„„à àà àà àFor€theÏAppellee„„›Ìœà àà àà àà àSecond€Injury€Fund:à àà àOak€Ridge€Schools›Ìœó óóóÌBruce›€D.€Foxà àà àœJohn›€Knox€œWalkupà àà àà àPamela€L.€Reeves›ÌRidenour,€Ridenour€&€Foxà àœAttorney›€General€&€œReporterà àP.O.€Box€131›Ì108€S.€Main€Streetà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37717ÌP.›€O.€Box€530à àà àœDianne›€Stamey€DycusÌClinton,€TN€œ37717„0530›à àœSenior›€CounselÌà àà àà àà àœCivil›€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àœ1510›€Parkway€TowersÌà àà àà àà àœ404›€James€Robertson€œPkwy›Ìà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0499ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓM€E€M€O€R€A€N€D€U€M€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌMembers€of€Panel:Ìóóó óÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌJoseph€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌœò òAFFIRMED›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÓÓó óà àThis€workers'€compensation€appeal€has€been€referred€to€the€SpecialÏWorkers'€Compensation€Appeals€Panel€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„225(e)(3)€for€hearing€and€reporting€to€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€alleged€that€on€February€15,€1994,€during€the€course€of€hisÏemployment€as€a€janitor,€he€suffered€a€lumbar€strain€while€lifting€a€trash€barrelÏwhich€resulted€in€permanent,€partial€disability.Ìà àAs€the€case€unfolded€it€developed€that€the€plaintiff€had€a€job„related€injury€inÏ1979,€requiring€surgery,€for€which€he€received€an€award€for€21.25€percentÏpermanent€partial€disability.Ìà àThe€medical€proof€established€that€the€1994€lifting€incident€aggravated€aÏlong„standing€disc€problem€œto€the€extent€of€causing›€some€nerve€irritation€but€noÏanatomical€changes.€€The€treating€orthopedic€œphysician,€Dr.€Fred€Killeffer,›€testifiedÏthat€the€plaintiff€had€a€four€percent€impairment€attributable€to€the€1994€accident,€butÏopined€that€he€should€not€continue€to€work€as€a€painter€or€custodian.Ìà àThe€defendant€offered€the€plaintiff€continued€employment€at€the€same€wages,Ïwith€an€accommodation€for€the€restrictions€recommended€by€his€physician.€€TheÏplaintiff€testified€that€he€attempted€to€work€but€could€not€do€so€within€the€liftingÏrestrictions.Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€the€plaintiff€was€unable€to€return€to€his€formerÏemployment€and€awarded€him€ð ðsix€times€his€aggravation€of€a€pre„existing€conditionÏwhich€is€24€percent€to€the€body€as€a€whole.ðð€€œWe›€assume€this€finding€is€intended€toÏmean€six€times€the€impairment€of€four€percent€attributable€to€the€1994€injury.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€appeals,€insisting€that€his€entitlement€should€not€have€beenÏlimited€to€six€times€his€impairment€because€he€met€three€of€the€four€criteria€set€forthÏin€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„242€and€thus€should€have€been€awarded€a€greaterÏdegree€of€disability.Ìà àPursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„6„242,€a€trial€court€òòmayóóÏaward€an€employee€permanent€partial€disability€benefits€in€excess€of€the€maximumÏdisability€allowed€by€applying€the€multiplier€but€not€to€exceed€400€weeks.€€œIn›€suchÏcases,€there€must€be€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€support€at€least€three€of€theÏfollowing€four€criteria:ÌÓÓà à1.à8 àThe€employee€lacks€a€high€school€diploma€or€generalÏequivalence€diploma€for€the€employee€cannot€read€orÏwrite€on€a€grade€eight€level;ÌÌà à2.à8 àThe€employee€is€age€55€or€older;ÌÌà à3.à8 àThe€employee€has€no€reasonably€transferrable€job€skillsÏfrom€prior€job€vocational€background€and€training;€andÌÌà à4.à8 àThe€employee€has€no€reasonable€employmentÏopportunities€available€locally€considering€theÏemployeeððs€permanent€medical€condition.ÌÌÓÓà àAs€the€trial€court€held,€the€plaintiff€had€the€burden€to€prove€by€œaclear€andÍconvincing€evidence›€that€he€met€at€least€three€of€these€factors.€€òòTindall€v.€WaringÏPark€Association,€óó725€S.W.2d€935,€937€(Tenn.€1987).€€The€Supreme€Court€hasÏpreviously€noted€that€the€legislature€clearly€intended€to€restrict€disability€awards€inÏworkersðð€compensation€cases€and€that€the€delineated€limits€should€be€exceededÏonly€when€there€is€a€showing€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€limitsÏshould€be€exceeded.€€òòMiddleton€v.€Allegheny€Electric€Co.,€Inc.,€óó897€S.W.2d€695,Ï698€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€plaintiff,€age€58,€does€not€have€a€high€school€diploma€or€a€GED€but€isÏable€to€read€and€write€without€problem.€€The€trial€court€did€not€find,€however,€that€theÏplaintiff€has€no€reasonably€transferrable€job€skills€or€that€there€are€no€reasonableÏemployment€opportunities€available.€€Ìà àThe€vocational€expert€evidence€offered€by€the€plaintiff€was€the€testimony€ofÏDr.€Clay€Colvin,€who€testified€that€the€plaintiff€has€no€reasonably€transferrable€jobÏskills€and€that€he€does€not€believe€there€are€any€reasonable€job€opportunitiesÏavailable€for€him.€€Dr.€Colvin€admitted,€however,€that€he€performed€no€diagnostic,Ïœvocational,›€psychological€or€functional€capacity€tests€upon€the€plaintiff,€whom€heÏsaw€only€one€time€in€July,€1995,€for€approximately€one€hour.€€At€the€time€of€hisÏevaluation,€Dr.€Colvin€had€not€seen€any€medical€restrictions€by€Dr.€Killeffer€and€hadÏnot€reviewed€Mr.€Raineyððs€functional€capacity€evaluations.€€Moreover,€he€concededÏthat€if€the€plaintiff€exhibited€mobility€as€alleged€by€the€employer,€he€would€more€thanÏlikely€be€capable€of€doing€light€duty€work.Ìà àThere€was€evidence€presented€that€the€plaintiff€had€job€skills€and€reasonableÏemployment€opportunities€available.€€Vivian€Bumgardner,€private€investigator,Ïtestified€that€she€observed€Mr.€Rainey€squatting,€standing,€walking,€climbing€in€andÏout€of€a€truck,€operating€a€wrecker€service,€including€hauling€and€selling€junk€cars,Íoperating€a€tractor€and€changing€the€equipment€on€the€tractor.€€This€testimonyÏsupports€the€opinion€of€Dr.€Killeffer,€the€treating€physician,€who€testified€that€Mr.ÏRainey€is€capable€of€light€duty€work.Ìà àWe€note,€as€did€the€trial€judge,€the€abundance€of€contradictory€evidence€inÏthe€record€which€focuses€on€the€credibility€issue.€€Since€the€trial€court€saw€andÏheard€the€witnesses,€considerable€deference€should€be€given€to€his€decision.€ÏòòTownsend€v.€State,€óó826€S.W.2d€œ434,€437›€(Tenn.€1992).Ìà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€theÏfinding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððóóÏ50„6„225(e)(2).€€òòStone€v.€City€of€McMinnville,€óó896€S.W.2d€œ548,€550›€(Tenn.€1991).€Ìà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€opinion,Ïwhich€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€JusticeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJoseph€C.€Loser,€Jr.,€Special€JudgeÔ% € ÔÌÌœÇÒ  ÒÒ H Òà àà àà àÌà àà àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€à à€€€€€€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÒ S ÒÒ H ÒVIRGIL€RAINEY,€à àà àà à€à à)€€€€ANDERSON€CIRCUIT€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà à€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€No.€94LA0407€€à à€€€€€€à à€à à€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellant,à àà à€€€€€€€€€€Ï)à àà à€à àÌvs.€€à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Hon.€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.à à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€€€€JudgeÌOAK€RIDGE€SCHOOLSà à€à àà à€)Ì€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Appellee,à àà àà à€)à àNo.€03S01„9607„CV„00077€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à€à à€)à àÌÓ ì ÓDINA€TOBIN,€DIRECTOR,€DIV.€OF€à à€)ÌWORKERSðð€COMPENSATION€TENN.à à€)ÌÓ  ÓDEPARTMENT€OF€LABOR,€SECOND€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€INJURYÏFUND.à àà à€à àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ì€€€€Third€„party€defendants/appellees€€€€€€€€)à àÌÌÌÓffÓà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€òòJUDGMENT€ORDERóóÌà àÌà àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€entire€record,€including€the€order€ofÏreferral€to€the€Special€Workerðð€Compensation€Panel,€and€the€PanelððsÏMemorandum€Opinion€setting€forth€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€whichÏare€incorporated€herein€by€reference;Ìà àÌà àWhereupon,€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€Memorandum€Opinion€of€theÏPanel€should€be€accepted€and€approved;€andÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€Panelððs€findings€of€act€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€are€adopted€and€affirmed,€and€the€decision€of€the€Panel€is€made€the€JudgmentÏof€the€Court.ÌÌà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€€to€the€plaintiff„appellant€and€Bruce€Fox,€surety,Ïfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌ06/02//97à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà à›